Experimental Study and Comparative Effects of Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) crop residues and effective Microorganisms (EM) on the Fertilizer value of Coffee Pulp Compost

In order to evaluate the fertilizer potentials of the coffee pulp as compost, three field experiments were set up with bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). To that end, the fresh coffee pulp was composted with accelerators addition. Evaluated treatments in a Completely Randomized Block Design (CRBD) with 4 replicates were as follows : T1 = Coffee pulp (CP) alone ; T2 = CP + 1 L molasse + 1 L Effective Microorganisms (EM1) + 37 kg of dolomitic lime ; T3 = CP + 16.75 kg of bean residues (BR1) + 16.75 kg of soil (forest soil) ; T4 = CP + 2 L molasse + 2 L EM2 + 74 kg of dolomitic lime ; T5 = CP + 33.5 kg of bean residues (BR2) + 33.5 kg of soil (forest soil) ; T6 = Farm manure + 1.5 T/ha dolomitic lime + 200 kg/ha DAP+ 100 kg/ha KCl + 50 kg/ha Urea and T7 = Control (non amended/fertilised). In both the bean and the first potato (Victoria variety) experiments, recommended organo-mineral fertilization (T6) was not significantly different from either T4 (CP+EM2) or T5 (CP + BR2).  In the second potato (Mabondo) study, T6 (Farm Manure + 60-90-60) produced significantly higher yields than the other treatments (T7, T6, T5, and T4), which did not show any significant differences among them. Across the three field studies, treatments T4 (CP+EM2) and T5 (CP + BR2) are equivalent and substitutable. Nevertheless, being imported, EM is surely problematic with regard to cost, conservation, and manipulation. In that context, we contend that T5 (CP + BR2) is more accessible to farmers and could be widely adopted as a source of organic fertilizer. We then advance that this compost treatment (T5) is the one to be disseminated as a potential coffee pulp-based source of organic fertilizer in coffee-growing Burundi areas. We further propose to test the minerally-complemented T5 (CP+BR2+mineral fertilizers) against the currently recommended Farm Manure+mineral fertilizer applications for bean (18-46-0) and potato (60-90-60) crops. Such an experimental study would evaluate the substitutability of farm manure by CP compost boosted by bean residues addition

Vegetable Yield responses to Coffee pulp Co-composted with Effective Microorganisms (EM) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Crop Residues

In a follow-up study to experiments conducted in order to evaluate the fertilizer potentials of coffee, pulp composts enhanced with (micro) biological accelerators on potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) crops, a triple experiment was conducted on two cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.) varieties (Mukasi and Kidodo) and on eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Tested treatments were: T1=Coffee pulp (CP) alone, T4=CP + 2 L molasse + 2 L EM + 74 kg of dolomitic lime (CP+EM2), T5= CP + 33.5 kg of bean residues (BR) + 33.5 kg of soil (forest soil) (CP+BR2), T6=Recommended organo-mineral fertilizer application for cabbage and T7=Control (non amended/fertilised). The first experiment with the Mukasi cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.) variety showed that CP+EM2 (T4) and CP+BR2 (T5) gave statistically equivalent yields. In the second experiment with the cabbage (Kidodo variety), fresh head yields followed the order: T5 (CP + BR2) ≥ T6 (organo-mineral fertilizer) ≥ T1 (CP alone) ≥ T4 (CP+ EM2) ≥ T7 (Control), indicating the superiority of the coffe pulp co-composted with bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) residues. Overall, CP+EM2 treatment (T4) did not perform well, particularly with Kidodo variety. The low performance of CP+EM2 (T4) was confirmed by the eggplant experiment, in which the highest yield was registered with the CP compost alone (T1), followed by CP + BR2 (T5), the control treatment (T7), and lastly by CP + EM2 (T4). In accordance with the previous potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) experiments, we confirm the consistent agronomic superiority of the CP+BR2 treatment (T5) over other tested treatments, including the costly inorganic treatment (T6). This conclusive statement is enhanced by the fact that the CP+BR2 treatment (T5) is more accessible and more reproducible by farmers (because locally available), in comparison with the CP+EM2 treatment (T4). The latter compost treatment is more problematic with regard to cost of acquisition (importation), conservation, manipulation and availability to poor rural Burundi farmers